Disease Markers

Disease Markers / 2019 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 4928315 | 11 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4928315

Prevalence of Syndecan-1 (CD138) Expression in Different Kinds of Human Tumors and Normal Tissues

Academic Editor: Mirte Mayke Streppel
Received14 May 2019
Accepted07 Sep 2019
Published30 Dec 2019

Abstract

Syndecan-1 (CD138) is a transmembrane proteoglycan known to be expressed in various normal and malignant tissues. It is of interest because of a possible prognostic role of differential expression in tumors and its role as a target for indatuximab, a monoclonal antibody coupled with a cytotoxic agent. To comprehensively analyze CD138 in normal and neoplastic tissues, we used tissue microarrays (TMAs) for analyzing immunohistochemically detectable CD138 expression in 2,518 tissue samples from 85 different tumor entities and 76 different normal tissue types. The data showed that CD138 expression is abundant in tumors. At least an occasional weak CD138 immunostaining could be detected in 71 of 82 (87%) different tumor types, and 58 entities (71%) had at least one tumor with a strong positivity. In normal tissues, a particularly strong expression was found in normal squamous epithelium of various organs, goblet and columnar cells of the gastrointestinal tract, and in hepatocytes. The highly standardized analysis of most human cancer types resulted in a ranking order of tumors according to the frequency and levels of CD138 expression. CD138 immunostaining was highest in squamous cell carcinomas such as from the esophagus (100%), cervix uteri (79.5%), lung (85.7%), vagina (89.7%) or vulva (73.3%), and in invasive urothelial cancer (76.2%). In adenocarcinomas, CD138 was also high in lung (82.9%) and colorectal cancer (85.3%) but often lower in pancreas (73.3%), stomach (54.2% in intestinal type), or prostate carcinomas (16.3%). CD138 expression was usually low or absent in germ cell tumors, sarcomas, endocrine tumors including thyroid cancer, and neuroendocrine tumors. In summary, the preferential expression in squamous cell carcinomas of various sites makes these cancers prime targets for anti-CD138 treatments once these might become available. Abundant expression in many different normal tissues might pose obstacles to exploiting CD138 as a therapeutic target, however.

1. Introduction

Syndecan-1 (CD138) is one of four members of the syndecan family. It is a cell surface protein consisting of three structural domains, one of which is extracellular and binds heparin sulfates and chondroitin sulfates [1]. Syndecan-1 has relevance for cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions [1]. It is involved in the regulation of cell proliferation, migration, and the organization of the cytoskeleton [1]. In normal tissues, CD138 is known to be expressed on plasma cells and various epithelial cell types.

CD138 expression in cancer is of potential clinical interest as specific drugs targeting CD138 are currently being evaluated in clinical trials. In a phase II trial on plasmocytoma, clinical efficacy and low side effects have been reported [2, 3]. In preclinical studies, these antibodies also showed efficacy against triple negative breast cancer and melanoma [4, 5]. If anti-CD138 therapies should prove successful, other CD138-positive cancer types might as well benefit from such treatments.

Altered CD138 expression has been described in various malignant tumors. For example, overexpression of CD138 has been reported in breast, urinary bladder, gallbladder, pancreatic, ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancer [1]. In other cancer types, such as lung, head/neck, gastric, renal, and colorectal cancer, CD138 expression was found to be reduced as compared to adjacent normal epithelium [1]. In several of these tumor types, either reduced or increased CD138 expression was linked to unfavorable tumor phenotype and poor patient prognosis [69]. Previous studies on CD138 in cancer have applied various different reagents and protocols for their immunohistochemical staining. It is probably because of this that the existing literature is highly discrepant with respect to the prevalence of CD138 expression in different tumor types. For example, the range of the reported CD138 positivity ranges from 26% [10] to 100% [11] in urinary bladder cancer, from 23% [10] to 89% [12] in squamous lung cancer, from 33% [13] to 100% [14] in breast cancer, from 50.5% [15] to 87% [10] in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, and from 24.7% [16] to 89.7% [17] in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix.

Given these heterogeneous data, the existing literature does not easily allow to determine these cancer types, where CD138 plays a particularly important role. To compare the prevalence and intensity of CD138 expression between tumor entities and to identify these cancer types that might be optimal candidates for anti-CD138 drugs, we thus analyzed more than 2500 cancers and 76 normal tissues using one standard protocol. For this purpose, a multitumor tissue microarray (TMA) was used containing up to 50 different tumors from 85 different tumor types and subtypes. The results of our study identify a broad range of highly CD138-expressing tumor entities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tissue Microarrays (TMAs)

We used two different sets of preexisting TMAs to study CD138 expression in normal human and cancerous human tissues. The first TMA was composed of one sample of 76 different normal tissue types (608 samples on one slide). The second TMA contained a total of 3,642 primary tumors from 85 tumor types and subtypes. The samples were distributed among 7 different TMA blocks (containing between 414 and 522 samples). The composition of the TMA is described in Table 1 in Results. All samples were derived from the archives of the Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany). Each TMA block contains an identical standard control section with 40 normal and tumor tissue spots in order to control for possible slide-to-slide variability of the immunostaining. Tissues were fixed in 4% buffered formalin and then embedded in paraffin. TMA tissue spot diameter was 0.6 mm. All works were compliant with the Helsinki Declaration. Informed consent was not necessary.


CD138 immunhistochemistry results (%)
Entity on TMA analyzableNegative %Weak %Moderate %Strong %Positive %

Tumors of the skinPilomatrixoma353063.326.710.00.036.7
Basalioma48412.47.37.382.997.6
Epidermal nevus2919100.00.00.00.00.0
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma50427.121.49.561.992.9
Malignant melanoma483997.42.60.00.02.6
Merkel cell carcinoma464269.021.42.47.131.0

Tumors of the airwayLaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma504415.931.811.440.984.1
Oral squamous cell carcinoma504511.122.220.046.788.9
Lung squamous cell carcinoma502114.314.39.561.985.7
Large cell bronchial carcinoma312556.032.04.08.044.0
Lung adenocarcinoma503517.134.320.028.682.9
Lung in situ pulmonary adenocarcinoma61580.020.00.00.020.0
Lung small cell carcinoma20520.020.040.020.080.0
Malignant mesothelioma483597.12.90.00.02.9
Parotid gland pleomorphic adenoma503721.610.818.948.678.4
Parotid gland Warthin tumor49417.329.322.041.592.7
Salivary gland Basal cell adenoma15150.033.333.333.3100.0

Gynecological tumorsVagina squamous cell carcinoma482910.327.624.137.989.7
Vulva squamous cell carcinoma503026.713.333.326.773.3
Cervix squamous cell carcinoma503920.523.125.630.879.5
Cervix adenocarcinoma504185.414.60.00.014.6
Endometrial carcinoma endometrioid504472.713.611.42.327.3
Endometrial carcinoma serous503360.69.118.212.139.4
Uterus stromal sarcoma121090.00.010.00.010.0
Carcinosarcoma484774.512.88.54.325.5
Ovarian carcinoma endometrioid373056.716.76.720.043.3
Ovarian carcinoma serous503979.510.37.72.620.5
Ovarian carcinoma mucinous262133.319.00.047.666.7
Brenner tumor960.00.00.0100.0100.0
NST breast carcinoma462846.417.97.128.653.6
Lobular breast carcinoma432774.111.17.47.425.9
Medullary breast carcinoma151172.79.19.19.127.3
Tubular breast carcinoma181040.010.010.040.060.0
Mucinous breast carcinoma221464.328.60.07.135.7
Phyllodes breast tumor50185.622.238.933.394.4

Gastrointestinal tumorsColon adenoma, low grade50270.03.73.792.6100.0
Colon adenoma, high grade50250.04.04.092.0100.0
Colon adenocarcinoma503414.735.320.629.485.3
Small intestine adenocarcinoma10475.025.00.00.025.0
Stomach carcinoma diffuse type502445.816.78.329.254.2
Stomach carcinoma intestinal type502821.442.914.321.478.6
Esophageal adenocarcinoma503330.327.312.130.369.7
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma49330.012.19.178.8100.0
Anal squamous cell carcinoma50229.118.29.163.690.9
Cholangiocarcinoma502360.917.48.713.039.1
Hepatocellular carcinoma50442.315.99.172.797.7
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma503026.736.716.720.073.3
Pancreas/papilla adenocarcinoma301729.417.611.841.270.6
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor492882.13.63.610.717.9
Gastrointestinal stroma tumor (GIST)5037100.00.00.00.00.0

Urogenital tumorsUrothelial carcinoma pTa504112.22.44.980.587.8
Urothelial carcinoma T2-4504223.84.816.754.876.2
Small cell urothelial carcinoma1818100.00.00.00.00.0
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma504645.713.017.423.954.3
Papillary renal cell carcinoma504459.122.76.811.440.9
Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma504281.09.59.50.019.0
Renal oncocytoma504438.627.320.513.661.4
Prostate carcinoma494383.74.74.77.016.3
Small cell prostate carcinoma171154.527.39.19.145.5
Seminoma5047100.00.00.00.00.0
Embryonic carcinoma (testis)503997.42.60.00.02.6
Yolk sac tumor502592.04.04.00.08.0
Teratoma502317.44.38.769.682.6

Endocrine tumorsThyroid adenoma504580.013.32.24.420.0
Papillary thyroid carcinoma503663.98.313.913.936.1
Follicular thyroid carcinoma494477.39.16.86.822.7
Medullary thyroid carcinoma502982.83.40.013.817.2
Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma261989.55.30.05.310.5
Adrenal adenoma504872.910.46.310.427.1
Adrenal carcinoma261435.721.414.328.664.3
Pheochromocytoma5032100.00.00.00.00.0
Neuroendocrine tumor (NET)502781.57.47.43.718.5

Hemic neoplasiaHodgkin lymphoma4543100.00.00.00.00.0
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma484297.62.40.00.02.4
Thymoma292470.816.78.34.229.2

Soft tissue tumorsGiant cell-long sheath tumor454197.62.40.00.02.4
Granular cell tumor30240.012.525.062.5100.0
Leiomyoma5041100.00.00.00.00.0
Leiomyosarcoma494693.50.06.50.06.5
Liposarcoma493497.12.90.00.02.9
Angiosarcoma322290.94.54.50.09.1

Bone neoplasmOsteosarcoma251788.25.95.90.011.8
Chondrosarcoma25887.50.012.50.012.5

2.2. Immunohistochemistry

Freshly cut TMA sections were immunostained on one day and in one experiment. Slides were deparaffinized and exposed to heat-induced antigen retrieval for 5 minutes in an autoclave at 121°C in pH 9 Dako Target Retrieval Solution buffer. Primary antibody specific for total Syndecan-1 (mouse monoclonal antibody, clone JASY1, Dianova, Hamburg, Germany, dilution 1 : 200) was applied at 37°C for 60 minutes. Bound antibody was then visualized using the EnVision Kit (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) according to the manufacturer’s directions. For tumor tissues, the percentage of positive epithelial cells was estimated and the staining intensity was semiquantitatively recorded (0, 1+, 2+, and 3+). For statistical analyses, the staining results were categorized into four groups. Tumors without any staining were considered as negative. Tumors with 1+ staining intensity in ≤70% of cells and 2+ intensity in ≤30% of cells were considered weakly positive. Tumors with 1+ staining intensity in >70% of cells, 2+ intensity in 30% to 70%, or 3+ intensity in ≤30% were considered moderately positive. Tumors with 2+ intensity in >70% or 3+ intensity in >30% of cells were considered strongly positive. These categories represent standard cutoffs that others and us have used in numerous IHC studies [18].

3. Results

3.1. Technical Issues

A total of 2,518 (69%) of the 3,642 tumor tissue samples were interpretable in our TMA analysis. Reasons for analysis failure included a fraction of missing samples or samples lacking unequivocal tumor cells. A sufficient number of samples were analyzable for all 76 normal tissue types enabling a complete normal tissue evaluation.

3.2. Syndecan-1 in Normal Tissues

All positive CD138 immunostainings in normal tissues are summarized in Table 2. CD138 was abundantly expressed, mostly in various epithelial cell types. A particularly strong expression of CD138 was observed in squamous epithelial cells of various organs (Figure 1(a)), goblet cells of the gastrointestinal tract (Figure 1(b)), columnar cells in the gall bladder (Figure 1(c)), and hepatocytes (Figure 1(d)). No CD138 staining was detected in the following tissues: aorta/intima, aorta/media, heart (left ventricle), skeletal muscle, skeletal muscle/tongue, myometrium, muscular wall appendix, esophagus, stomach, ileum, colon descendens, kidney pelvis and urinary bladder, penis (glans/corpus spongiosum), ovary (stroma), fat tissue (white), spleen, thymus, ovary (corpus luteum), ovary (follicular cyst), thyroid, cerebellum, cerebrum, pituitary gland (posterior lobe), pituitary gland (anterior lobe), and bone marrow.


Organ systemsCell type (strong staining +++)Cell type (moderate staining ++)Cell type (weak staining +)

Urogenital kidney, urinary bladder, prostate, seminal vesicle, epididymisTubular cells, collecting duct cellsUrothelial basal/intermediate/umbrella cells, basal cells of the prostate and seminal vesicle, some columnar cells of the epididymis

Gynecology breast, cervix uteri, uterus corpus, placenta (early and mature)Ectocervical: basal cellsEctocervical: intermediate cells, superficial endometrial cells, cytotrophoblasts, syncytiotrophoblastsBreast: excretory duct cells and myoepithelial cells, endocervical: some mucous cells; endometrium: some basalis type cells and some secretory cells, decidual cells

Skin, sebaceous glandBasal cells, keratocytes, peripheral germinative cells of the sebaceous glandSebaceous gland cells

Lip, oral cavity, tonsilKeratocytes, squamous epithelial cells

Salivary glands parotid gland, submandibular gland, sublingual glandSerous cellsSome serous cells, some columnar ductal cells, myoepithelial cells, intralobular duct cells of the submandibular gland, columnar ductal cells of the sublingual gland

Gastrointestinal tract esophagus, stomach, duodenum, ileum, colon descendens, rectum, anal canal and transitional mucosa, appendix vermiformisSquamous basal cells of the esophagus, keratinocytes, parietal cells and chief cells of the stomach, crypt cells, goblet cells, absorptive cells, basal cells and keratinocytes of the anal skinMucous secreting cells and columnar cells of the stomach, Brunner glands

GallbladderColumnar cells, mucous gland cells

LiverHepatocytesInterlobular bile duct cells

PancreasExcretory duct cells

Airway lung, bronchus, sinus paranasalBasal cells, ciliated cells, goblet cellsPneumocytes, bronchus glands: basal cells and serous cells, goblet cells of the sinus paranasales

Endocrine adrenal gland, parathyroidCortical cellsOxyphil cells and chief cells of the parathyroid

3.3. CD138 in Tumorous Tissues

Immunostaining was predominantly membranous but sometimes also in the cytoplasm. Occasional stroma staining also occurred but was disregarded for this analysis. CD138 positivity was seen in 1,118 of 2,518 analyzable tumors (Table 1). CD138 immunostaining was considered weak in 330 (13%), moderate in 226 (9%), and strong in 562 tumors (22%). Representative tumor tissue spots with CD138 expression are shown in Figures 1(e) and 1(h) . At least some CD138 expression could be detected in 75 of 85 (88%) of our tumor categories, including 60 (71%) categories where at least one tumor showed a strong positivity (Table 1). The tumor types where some CD138 was seen in all analyzed cases included basal cell adenoma, colon adenoma, squamous carcinoma of the esophagus, granular cell tumor, and ovarian Brenner tumor. A particularly significant CD138 expression was also detected in anal carcinoma (90.9%), squamous carcinoma of the skin (92.9%), hepatocellular carcinoma (97.7%), phyllodes carcinoma of the breast (94.4%), and in Warthin tumor of the parotis (92.7%). Tumor types with a particularly low or absent CD138 immunostaining included testicular germ cell tumors, several sarcomas, melanoma, malignant mesothelioma, and small cell urinary bladder carcinoma.

4. Discussion

The results of this study provide a comprehensive overview on Syndecan-1 expression in human tumors. The data show that—across all organs of origin—squamous cell (and urothelial) carcinomas are particularly prone to express Syndecan-1, often at high levels. Even though adenocarcinomas derived from the colon and the lung are also high expressers, CD138 immunostaining appears to be generally less intense and less frequent in adenocarcinomas. This is best visible in organs where both adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas occur as in the uterine cervix and in the esophagus. The squamous cell predominance of CD138 expression even becomes apparent in cancers with identical pathogenesis such as cervical cancer, oral cancer, or squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, which are often human papilloma virus associated. Clinically important cancer types with low to intermediate frequencies and levels of CD138 expression include cancers of the kidney and of the endometrium while low frequencies of positivity were found in prostate cancer, endocrine tumors including thyroid cancer, and neuroendocrine tumors as well as germ cell cancers. Despite some outliers, our data are largely consistent with the literature. Several other investigators had earlier described particularly high levels of CD138 expression in squamous cell cancer [17, 19, 20].

The standardized assessment of 85 different tumor types and subtypes enabled us to define a ranking order with respect to the level of CD138 expression in cancer. We believe these data are particularly helpful for these tumor types for which previous data had been partially discrepant. The study also provided information on a number of relevant tumor types for which CD138 data were lacking so far. These for example include squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva and the anal canal, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, seminoma, embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor of the testis, small cell bladder cancer, neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas, pheochromocytoma, thymoma, gastrointestinal stroma tumor (GIST), angiosarcoma, and leiomyosarcoma. Moreover, subtype-specific data were obtained for several tumor types, for which previous analyses were performed on tumor cohorts with less detailed information on tumor morphology such as urothelial carcinoma, breast, endometrium, and ovarian cancers. These data thus represent another example of the suitability of TMAs composed of samples of many different tumor types and normal tissues for comprehensively characterizing a biomarker or antibody (demonstration of our data compared to previous studies is shown in Figure 2) [613, 1517, 1960].

Various earlier studies have suggested a link to poor patient outcome for either increased or decreased Syndecan-1 levels [1]. CD138 protein can have tumor suppressor and tumor-promoting functions which depend on the tumor [61]. Our tumor cohort was devoid of any tumor stage or clinical outcome information. Indirect evidence for a variable role of differential CD138 expression for tumor progression comes from the comparison of related tumor subtypes, however. For example, the lower expression levels of CD138 in colorectal adenocarcinoma and in invasive urothelial carcinoma (pT2-4) as compared to colon adenomas and noninvasive bladder tumors (pTa) argues for a loss of CD138 paralleling tumor progression in these tumors. The lower expression of CD138 in chromophobe renal carcinoma as compared to its benign counterpart oncocytoma may also be viewed as an argument for CD138 downregulation being linked to tumor aggressiveness in these kidney cancers derived from the distal nephron tubulus. However, higher levels of CD138 expression in the cortical adrenal carcinoma than in the adrenal adenoma suggest that increased CD138 levels may accompany progression in these tumors.

CD138 is a membrane protein and as such a potential target for antibody therapeutics. There are efforts to develop a suitable therapy for CD138-positive cancers. CD138 was shown to be overexpressed on the surface of multiple myeloma cells which is used in a preclinical study for an antitumoral therapy with indatuximab, a monoclonal antibody coupled with a cytotoxic agent, which is currently evaluated in preclinical studies on plasmacytoma [3] and triple-negative breast cancers in combination with other drugs [4]. Based on our data, squamous cell carcinomas, irrespective of their site of origin, emerge as further possible candidates for anti-CD138 therapy once such a treatment should prove to be efficient and become available. The abundant expression of CD138 in various normal tissues including squamous epithelium from various different organs identifies various sites where potential side effects of these therapies might emerge.

CD138 expression analysis is currently used in routine diagnostic pathology to distinguish and quantitate plasma cells, for example, in the bone marrow and in endometrial biopsies where the presence of plasma cells indicates chronic endometritis. Apart from two possible exceptions, our data provide little evidence for Syndecan-1 expression analysis providing diagnostic clues in difficult diagnostic situations. The low expression in mesothelioma as compared to the high prevalence of strong expression in pulmonary adenocarcinoma suggests that Syndecan-1 could be potentially added to the long list of antibodies that help to distinguish these tumor entities. A low frequency of Syndecan-1 expression (10%) has recently also been described for peritoneal mesothelioma [62]. Moreover, CD138 was markedly higher in hepatocellular carcinoma as compared to cholangiocellular carcinoma of the liver. However, other antibodies as, for example, arginase or BSEP are better separators of these tumor entities [6365].

It is a limitation of this study that immunohistochemistry approaches, especially when using bright-field visualization, are not optimal for protein quantification. Importantly, the lack of immunostaining does not exclude a biologically relevant CD138 expression in “negative” normal or neoplastic cells. Every protocol defines a detection threshold below of which tissues are considered negative. Above this detection limit, the staining intensity enables a certain quantification of proteins but this is limited by a maximum intensity staining which cannot become discernably stronger in case of even higher protein expression levels. Moreover, occasional stromal staining had been disregarded in our study, although others and us have shown that there is evidence for a clinically relevant role of CD138 expression in the tumor-associated stroma [23, 57, 66]. However, stroma staining is infrequent and would require larger sample numbers per cancer type for a meaningful analysis.

In summary, this study provides a comprehensive overview on CD138 expression in human tumors. The preferential expression in squamous cell carcinomas of various sites makes these cancers prime targets for anti-CD138 treatments once these might become available. Abundant expression in many different normal tissues might pose obstacles to exploiting CD138 as a therapeutic target, however.

Data Availability

The immunohistochemistry data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

JI, DP, C H-M, GS, RS, CM, and C M-K conceived and designed the study, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. SW, CF, and SK performed most of the key immunohistochemical analyses. GS, SK, and RS were involved in the original conception of the study. TC, FB, FJ, and C H-M provided the data. WW, VC, AL, AH, DH, GS, SK, and KM participated in tissue processing, pathological diagnosis, and immunohistochemical analysis. DD, AB, CG, AM, GS, and RS provided the materials, clinical follow-up data, and technical assistance. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

References

  1. M. Palaiologou, I. Delladetsima, and D. Tiniakos, “CD138 (syndecan-1) expression in health and disease,” Histology and Histopathology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 177–189, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. B. Nageshwari and R. Merugu, “Effect of levamisole on expression of CD138 and interleukin-6 in human multiple myeloma cell lines,” Indian Journal of Cancer, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 566–571, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. K. Schönfeld, C. Zuber, J. Pinkas, T. Häder, K. Bernöster, and C. Uherek, “Indatuximab ravtansine (BT062) combination treatment in multiple myeloma: pre-clinical studies,” Journal of hematology & oncology, vol. 10, no. 1, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. K. Schönfeld, P. Herbener, C. Zuber et al., “Activity of indatuximab ravtansine against triple-negative breast cancer in preclinical tumor models,” Pharmaceutical research, vol. 35, no. 6, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. P. Orecchia, R. Conte, E. Balza et al., “A novel human anti-syndecan-1 antibody inhibits vascular maturation and tumour growth in melanoma,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 2022–2033, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. T. Zellweger, C. Ninck, M. Mirlacher et al., “Tissue microarray analysis reveals prognostic significance of syndecan‐1 expression in prostate cancer,” The Prostate, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. T. Kusumoto, J. Kodama, N. Seki, K. Nakamura, A. Hongo, and Y. Hiramatsu, “Clinical significance of syndecan-1 and versican expression in human epithelial ovarian cancer,” Oncology Reports, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 917–925, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. Juuti, S. Nordling, J. Lundin, J. Louhimo, and C. Haglund, “Syndecan-1 expression--a novel prognostic marker in pancreatic cancer,” Oncology, vol. 68, no. 2-3, pp. 97–106, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. E. Lendorf, T. Manon-Jensen, P. Kronqvist, H. A. B. Multhaupt, and J. R. Couchman, “Syndecan-1 and syndecan-4 are independent indicators in breast carcinoma,” Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 615–629, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. N. Kambham, C. Kong, T. A. Longacre, and Y. Natkunam, “Utility of syndecan-1 (CD138) expression in the diagnosis of undifferentiated malignant neoplasms: a tissue microarray study of 1,754 cases,” Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 304–310, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. K. Goto, “CD138 expression is observed in the urothelial epithelium and in various urothelial carcinomas, and cannot be evidence for plasmacytoid urothelial carcinoma,” International Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 614–619, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. L. Shah, K. L. Walter, A. C. Borczuk et al., “Expression of syndecan‐1 and expression of epidermal growth factor receptor are associated with survival in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma,” Cancer, vol. 101, no. 7, pp. 1632–1638, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Saqi, S. S. Yun, G. H. Yu et al., “Utility of CD138 (syndecan‐1) in distinguishing carcinomas from mesotheliomas,” Diagnostic Cytopathology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 65–70, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. G. H. Lim, P. H. Tan, A. R. Jara-Lazaro et al., “Syndecan-1 is a potential biomarker for triple-positive breast carcinomas in Asian women with correlation to survival,” Singapore Medical Journal, vol. 55, no. 09, pp. 468–472, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. S. Mikami, K. Ohashi, Y. Usui et al., “Loss of syndecan‐1 and increased expression of heparanase in invasive esophageal carcinomas,” Japanese Journal of Cancer Research, vol. 92, no. 10, pp. 1062–1073, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. F. Numa, K. Hirabayashi, K. Kawasaki et al., “Syndecan-1 expression in cancer of the uterine cervix: association with lymph node metastasis,” International Journal of Oncology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 39–43, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  17. Y. I. Kim, A. Lee, B. H. Lee, and S. Y. Kim, “Prognostic significance of syndecan-1 expression in cervical cancers,” Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 161–167, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. R. Simon, M. Mirlacher, and G. Sauter, “Immunohistochemical analysis of tissue microarrays,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 664, pp. 113–126, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. A. H. Omar, C. Haglund, S. Virolainen et al., “Epithelial and stromal syndecan‐1 and ‐2 are distinctly expressed in oral‐ and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas,” Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 389–395, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. Szumilo, F. Burdan, K. Zinkiewicz et al., “Expression of syndecan-1 and cathepsins D and K in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” Folia Histochemica et Cytobiologica, vol. 47, no. 4, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. Z. Al-Quran, L. Yang, J. M. Magill, R. C. Braylan, and V. K. Douglas-Nikitin, “Assessment of bone marrow plasma cell infiltrates in multiple myeloma: the added value of CD138 immunohistochemistry,” Human pathology, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1779–1787, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. A. Tzankov, A. Zimpfer, A. C. Pehrs et al., “Expression of B-cell markers in classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a tissue microarray analy4sis of 330 cases,” Modern Pathology, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1141–1147, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. J. Stanley, M. W. Stanley, R. D. Sanderson, and R. Zera, “Syndecan-1 expression is induced in the stroma of infiltrating breast carcinoma,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 377–383, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Z. Pap, Z. Pavai, L. Denes, I. Kovalszky, and J. Jung, “An immunohistochemical study of colon adenomas and carcinomas: E-cadherin, syndecan-1, Ets-1,” Pathology & Oncology Research, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 579–587, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. Matsumoto, M. Ono, Y. Fujimoto, R. L. Gallo, M. Bernfield, and Y. Kohgo, “Reduced expression of syndecan-1 in human hepatocellular carcinoma with high metastatic potential,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 482–491, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M. Barbareschi, P. Maisonneuve, D. Aldovini et al., “High syndecan‐1 expression in breast carcinoma is related to an aggressive phenotype and to poorer prognosis,” Cancer, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 474–483, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. M. Leivonen, J. Lundin, S. Nordling, K. von Boguslawski, and C. Haglund, “Prognostic value of syndecan-1 expression in breast cancer,” Oncology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 11–18, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. K. Al-Shibli, S. Al-Saad, S. Andersen, T. Donnem, R. M. Bremnes, and L.-T. Busund, “The prognostic value of intraepithelial and stromal CD3‐, CD117‐ and CD138‐positive cells in non‐small cell lung carcinoma,” APMIS, vol. 118, no. 5, pp. 371–382, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. E. Toyoshima, Y. Ohsaki, Y. Nishigaki, Y. Fujimoto, Y. Kohgo, and K. Kikuchi, “Expression of syndecan-1 is common in human lung cancers independent of expression of epidermal growth factor receptor,” Lung Cancer, vol. 31, no. 2-3, pp. 193–202, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. P. Inki, F. Stenback, S. Grenman, and M. Jalkanen, “Immunohistochemical localization of syndecan‐1 in normal and pathological human uterine cervix,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 172, no. 4, pp. 349–355, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. R. M. Day, X. Hao, M. Ilyas, P. Daszak, I. C. Talbot, and A. Forbes, “Changes in the expression of syndecan-1 in the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 434, no. 2, pp. 121–125, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. Y. Hashimoto, M. Skacel, and J. C. Adams, “Association of loss of epithelial syndecan-1 with stage and local metastasis of colorectal adenocarcinomas: an immunohistochemical study of clinically annotated tumors,” BMC Cancer, vol. 8, no. 1, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. A. Mitselou, U. Skoufi, K. E. Tsimogiannis et al., “Association of syndecan-1 with angiogenesis-related markers, extracellular matrix components, and clinicopathological features in colorectal carcinoma,” Anticancer Research, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 3977–3985, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  34. J. Klatka, “Syndecan-1 expression in laryngeal cancer,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 259, no. 3, pp. 115–118, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. J. O. Pulkkinen, M. Penttinen, M. Jalkanen, P. Klemi, and R. Grenman, “Syndecan-1: a new prognostic marker in laryngeal cancer,” Acta Oto-Laryngologica, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 312–315, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. M. Rintala, P. Inki, P. Klemi, M. Jalkanen, and S. Grenman, “Association of syndecan-1 with tumor grade and histology in primary invasive cervical carcinoma,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 372–378, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. J. P. Wiksten, J. Lundin, S. Nordling, A. Kokkola, and C. Haglund, “Comparison of the prognostic value of a panel of tissue tumor markers and established clinicopathological factors in patients with gastric cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 28, no. 4c, pp. 2279–2287, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  38. B. Geramizadeh, O. A. Adeli, M. Rahsaz, M. Mokhtari, and S. Sefidbakht, “Comparison of the expression of cell adhesion molecule markers (E-cadherin and syndecan-1) between young and older age patients with gastric carcinoma,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 193–196, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. X. F. Hu, J. Yao, S. G. Gao, Y. T. Yang, X. Q. Peng, and X. S. Feng, “Midkine and syndecan1 levels correlate with the progression of malignant gastric cardiac adenocarcinoma,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1409–1415, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. T. Szarvas, H. Reis, G. Kramer et al., “Enhanced stromal syndecan-1 expression is an independent risk factor for poor survival in bladder cancer,” Human Pathology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 674–682, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. N. Gökden, G. F. Greene, I. B. Bayer-Garner, H. J. Spencer, R. D. Sanderson, and M. Gökden, “Expression of CD138 (syndecan-1) in renal cell carcinoma is reduced with increasing nuclear grade,” Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 173–177, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. A. Ozcan, E. Celik, Y. Karslioglu, and S. Basal, “CD138 expression in renal tumors and its usage in the differential diagnosis,” Turkish Journal of Pathology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 110–115, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. M. Gotte, C. Kersting, M. Ruggiero et al., “Predictive value of syndecan-1 expression for the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of primary breast cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 26, no. 1b, pp. 621–627, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  44. D. Loussouarn, L. Campion, C. Sagan et al., “Prognostic impact of syndecan-1 expression in invasive ductal breast carcinomas,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 98, no. 12, pp. 1993–1998, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. E. J. Choi, J. A. Yun, E. K. Jeon, H. S. Won, Y. H. Ko, and S. Y. Kim, “Prognostic significance of RSPO1, WNT1, P16, WT1, and SDC1 expressions in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 11, no. 1, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. I. Mise and M. Vucic, “Comparison of syndecan-1 immunohistochemical expression in lobular and ductal breast carcinoma with nodal metastases,” Analytical Cellular Pathology, vol. 2018, Article ID 9432375, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. R. Salani, I. Neuberger, R. J. Kurman et al., “Expression of extracellular matrix proteins in ovarian serous tumors,” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 141–146, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. E. J. Davies, F. H. Blackhall, J. H. Shanks et al., “Distribution and clinical significance of heparan sulfate proteoglycans in ovarian cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 10, no. 15, pp. 5178–5186, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. Miturski, M. Jalkanen, K. Postawski, J. Jakowicki, and P. Inki, “Immunohistochemical expression of syndecan-1 in human endometrial cancer cells,” International Journal of Molecular Medicine, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 397–401, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. K. Harada, S. Masuda, M. Hirano, and Y. Nakanuma, “Reduced expression of syndecan-1 correlates with histologic dedifferentiation, lymph node metastasis, and poor prognosis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” Human Pathology, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 857–863, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. R. Bologna-Molina, R. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, A. Mosqueda-Taylor, N. Molina-Frechero, P. Damian-Matsumura, and H. Dominguez-Malagon, “Expression of syndecan-1 in papillary carcinoma of the thyroid with extracapsular invasion,” Archives of Medical Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 33–37, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. Hasengaowa, J. Kodama, T. Kusumoto, Y. Shinyo, N. Seki, and Y. Hiramatsu, “Prognostic significance of syndecan-1 expression in human endometrial cancer,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 1109–1115, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. Y. Ito, H. Yoshida, K. Nakano et al., “Syndecan‐1 expression in thyroid carcinoma: stromal expression followed by epithelial expression is significantly correlated with dedifferentiation,” Histopathology, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 157–164, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. J. Kiviniemi, M. Kallajoki, I. Kujala et al., “Altered expression of syndecan‐1 in prostate cancer,” APMIS, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 89–97, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. S. F. Shariat, R. S. Svatek, W. Kabbani et al., “Prognostic value of syndecan‐1 expression in patients treated with radical prostatectomy,” BJU International, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 232–237, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  56. R. Ledezma, F. Cifuentes, I. Gallegos et al., “Altered expression patterns of syndecan-1 and -2 predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer,” Asian Journal of Andrology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 476–480, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. B. Sharpe, D. A. Alghezi, C. Cattermole et al., “A subset of high Gleason grade prostate carcinomas contain a large burden of prostate cancer syndecan‐1 positive stromal cells,” The Prostate, vol. 77, no. 13, pp. 1312–1324, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. A. L. Nunez, G. P. Siegal, V. V. B. Reddy, and S. Wei, “CD138 (syndecan-1) expression in bone-forming tumors,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 423–428, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. S. Kumar‐singh, W. Jacobs, K. Dhaene et al., “Syndecan-1 expression in malignant mesothelioma: correlation with cell differentiation, WT1 expression, and clinical outcome,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 186, no. 3, pp. 300–305, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. L.-E. Zaragosi, B. Dadone, J.-F. Michiels et al., “Syndecan-1 regulates adipogenesis: new insights in dedifferentiated liposarcoma tumorigenesis,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 32–40, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. T. L. Nguyen, W. E. Grizzle, K. Zhang, O. Hameed, G. P. Siegal, and S. Wei, “Syndecan-1 overexpression is associated with nonluminal subtypes and poor prognosis in advanced breast cancer,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 140, no. 4, pp. 468–474, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. R. T. Tandon, Y. Jimenez-Cortez, R. Taub, and A. C. Borczuk, “Immunohistochemistry in peritoneal mesothelioma: a single-center experience of 244 cases,” Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 236–242, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. O. H. Labib, O. A. Harb, O. H. Khalil, T. A. Baiomy, L. M. Gertallah, and R. Z. Ahmed, “The diagnostic value of arginase-1, FTCD, and MOC-31 expression in early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and in differentiation between HCC and metastatic adenocarcinoma to the liver,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. You, W. Chen, J. Chen, Q. Zheng, J. Dong, and Y. Zhu, “The oncogenic role of ARG1 in progression and metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 2109865, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. K. Fujikura, T. Yamasaki, K. Otani et al., “BSEP and MDR3,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 689–696, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. S. Kind, A. Jaretzke, F. Büscheck et al., “A shift from membranous and stromal syndecan‐1 (CD138) expression to cytoplasmic CD138 expression is associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer,” Molecular Carcinogenesis, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 2306–2315, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Simon Kind et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

366 Views | 264 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.